the galah

that was very good selecting by you last week,hard to top that. i'm not sure what you mean when you say-the appreciation of the main player,the horse does drop significantly as seen on bit of a yarn. Nnor where you say- people stop recognising the participants. i've never read anyone say that on here or in general elsewhere. if you listen to what that man said on that show,you can see everything he said is reflected in turnover figures,when those factors he mentions are at play in nz.. so,for the sake of the people and the horses in harness racing that you mention,,you need administrators implementing policies and procedures that maximise returns for industry participants. and when you say,its only a money making exercise if people focus on how to maximise turnovers,well that seems to undrervalue the importance of that somewhat.

His conversation was about what the industry and tracks over there needed to do to be sustainable-basically he was talking about how turnovers dictate tracks either turning a profit or loss. How tracks that turned profits can prosper and tracks that didn't don't.And how he seemed to think it inevitable and just realism that the not profitable tracks would and should close. Just market forces. He obviously has been a highly sort after person and been involved in implementing policies at tracks which have turned around turnover and profitability.He has been involved in that for decades and had all the stats and numbers in his head. the the fast tracks tyhing was one of several the factors he gave-he explained front end horses have an advantage,that fast tracks with bends make it too hard for backrunners to make moves and that was a factor in whether punters bet or did not bet.I mean isn't that obvious anyway. at no point did he say anything about quality of horse being a factor. In fact he often referenced how clubs could make profits from a programme of lower grade claimers because the purses were not as significant-and how that was an important thing for thos tracks sustainabilty. he actually mentioned some things i've mentioned before.e.g. he said,timeslots can make or break a track. reducing purses for small fields. delays in races starting push turnovers up-that factor is a bit more complicated when it come sto nz as we rely on sky racing coverage in australia to boost turnover and as nz harness have no leverage due to it being tabcorp who run the racing channel,nz racing sometimes may lose coverage if races were delayed. he refers to the meadowlands recently running racing with 20 minute gaps and running on time and saying how that was a bad decision. He said they should have known to delay the start as its what has always worked to get the turnover up-of course their coverage wouldn't be jammed in between a gallops meeting form taree and a dog race from ballarat like happens with nz harness. But what i do think nz harness should seriously look at is eking out just a minute or so delay to the start of there nz races. Thats what they could do to help turnover. Sky racing will still keep covering a meeting if it starts around under 2 minutes late if they can see in that last minute the horses are starting to line up and l begin within that time frame.Its not an over complicated thing. They could do things like have the mobile up the track from the horses a bit more and at the point in time he would normally start,he puts on a light on his mobile,backs up ,stops and then blows the whistle as per normal and only then do the horses start coming up. All tjhat would take up to a minute,people watching can see the start is happening and the clubs get an extra minutes coverage and turnovers increase. Or with standing starts,they revert back to what worked for 100 years,the horses starting on the front line form only 1 circle,thus i takes an extra 30 seconds to a minute to line up ,and you get more people betting. and they should never be running meetings with 40 minute gaps,nor 25 minute gaps. they should be a standards 30 minute gap. And when running 2 harness meetings they should never run one meeting with 10 minute gaps from the other meeting. As i said last week,auckland was not confirmed at least a couple of times before addington started.Do the people not understand how punters work if they are say sitting at a pub tab. They will not,go up to the machine,keep putting the betslip that had a collect form the previous race until it clears ,hoping they can hold up the que long enough for it to do that and them get a bet on the next race. I mean i know when the races start but i regularly get shut out myself because they either change the gaps between races of they haven't confirmed the previous harness race.

actually ,one thing i've observed over the last 25 years, is how stakemoney on south island nz harness has gone from being more than the south island gallops,to now being much less. And the more i've thought about it the more its obvious why that is. they get full fields becuase the horse population correlates with the number of races run. that leads to a far more attractive betting product,which results in increased wagering,which leads to more returns to the industry which leads to increased sustainable stake levels.(and they always get good timeslots and coverage).

i just had a listen to this show and i think everybody should listen to it if they are interested in what harness racing can do to prosper. obviously the usa is different with their simulcasts and so many tracks with casinos and obviously given nz harness have very little control over trackside coverage. But many of the things he says the industry needs to occur to prosper,well the industry is doing theopposite. The faster you make the tracks ,the worse your racing is,the less your turnover. (too many front end dominated races)-(-using that observation of his ,i think you could add the more sprints you have the less the turnover) Do you have a horse shortage or a track and race day excess. You have to adapt to market conditions. whats the interest of the betting supplier(tab/entain). If its racing then they will focus on harness racing and it will prosper-. If its cainos(or sport) then racing will become secondary.. you have to drive the breeding industry with the racing industry,but the racing should always be the main focus. not running competing high oprofile meetings against each other. Delaying the start by a couple of minutes has a drastic efffect on increasing turnovers. lowering takeout significantly increases turnover. refuse the stakes paid if the number of starters is small.(i've mentioned that myself) you can't run races at similar timeslots as major races elsewhere . increased % handle on track is important to support clubs to get people on track. what are the stakes required to keep people happy. e.g. age group. If they need x amount to get people to race 2 year olds,they should provide it,but reduce the number of said 2 year old races to the level where they get good field sizes.If they are going to run small fields they will go broke. move the races to days where they generate turnover and coverage-even if it midweek. people want as many days as they can get,but the more you spread it out the more people prefer to race in small fields ,the more you lose money. given the market,there should be less races and tracks. you have to adapt to market conditions.

so you do understand,as you say "when funding decreases so will your prizemoney.Just a normal progression" so really the difference with your view and my view is not related to how much money hrnz have to spend. its you see no problem with HRNZ spending up now,keeping prizemoney up now,then when they tapped their reserves, just decrease prizemoney.Thats what you said above anyway. So your thinking is similar to what those in charge at hrn appear to have. Only difference between you and them is some of those at hrnz will have an exit strategy when the funding decrease happens, whereas you will still be supporting harness racing.. in effect thats a strategy which limits negative impacts on harness racing people now,but substantially increases the negative impacts later. Whereas my opinion,and that of many others is,HRNZ shouldn't be diminishing their cash reserves at the rate they are,as there will come a point when stakes will have to be cut,and unfortunately they will need to be cut to levels, which will result in less particpation across the industry, which will send nz harness racing in to a steep decline from which they will never fully recover from. its like someone is leading a life where they have a job that pays ok and they can afford the costof living , and put aside some money in the bank.Then they find out they've been taken off contract and put on an hourly wage ,the effect of which is to cut their income where their outgoings excede their incoming $.That person has 2 main choices,cut out any excess spending and use the money in the bank to maintain the a reasonable tandard living,or the 2nd alternative of making no cuts to their spending,use discretion as to when they use some of the money they have in the bank, until it runs out. The person who kept spending,day of reckoning come far quicker that the person who didn't. Andlife is tough when it happens.

I don't think anyone is duping me gamma. i'm of the understanding that when bookies suffer big losses on runners on the ff book ,e.g.moonlite blood ,that means they will most likely have suffered a loss on that race.And if you have a run of well backed ff favorites winning at a meeting,that means the bookies will not be generating much of a profit,if any on the races where well backed favorites win. so theoretically,hrnz may have put on a race meeting,pay out x amount in stakes,expecting to receive x amount of funding from the tab for that meeting,but end up getting next to nothing,because of how the profit/loss ff betting turned out,no matter what the turnover figure. Of course i realise the bookies will turn a profit in the end,but that profit varies and that impacts the amount hrnz receive from the tab for funding. Thats how i understand ff betting/funding from, works.

that should have read they run at a loss/not profit.

the thing i found strange about the moonlight blood price,was there you had that ben from betcha going on about the liability being $59,000 with several minutes to go and him saying it was going to end up the highest he had seen for a sunday. So what did the bookies do. They kept the price at an appealing level. So why didn't they turn the tap off by reducing the odds they were offering more,or increase the price of others a wee bit to take more money on those runners,thus mitigating their losses if moonlight blood won.. aren't bookies supposed to do that. i've always thought thats how bookies should operate,treat everyone the same and just try and run a book that comes out with a nice profit..Like don't restrict anyone,just don't offer them attractive odds if that runner has been heavily backed and is going to lead to a loss. Its like you get the impression the bookies are more into gambling than the gamblers. after all,if the bookies are losing like they seem to often,then doesn't that mean that the racemeetings end up running at a profit and that will impact money available for the indstry to fund things. i mean its nice to see punters get a win,but the level of that was more an own goal.I

brodie,you seem to have a lot of faith in this new advisory board that mr peters put together. i read an article by mick guerin about that new board and guerin did his thing,rambled on how great the people on it are. thing is,as i pointed out at the time,when guerin kept saying things were going well at the atc,which he generally did just before each upcoming sales,he lost credibilty. Now you have to recognise thats just what he does. same a swhat hes doing when he wrote that article about the new advisory board. same type of sentiment we got form mr steele when he did a press release about that new advisory board.. Thing is,we've heard it all before so many times. Give me one good reason why this new group will identify things that others haven't in the past? sure they may have influence with peters,but having a group of people come along and say,hey your stuffing things up for the future,when people already can see that,well big deal.. 'm guessing you will find the majoirity of the recommendations they make will effect the bigger players in the harness industry and be more thouroughbred industry. applicable anyway. remember they have had these advisory boards in the past. Looking at the current HRNZ board,they seem to have people who we should have confidence in to oversee the making of the right decisions by hrnz employees around future sustainabilty. But heres the thing. those in charge should be fully aware people don't have confidence that the right decisions are being made. Mark jones letter is an illustration of that.So is the chatter you get on the social media sites i read. like this and the other channel. so theres a reason for that. many of the issues in harness racing are complex, but balance sheets/profit loss,financial sustainabilty aren't complex.

aren't you just doing what i said will be the playbook of those who feel threatened by the accuracy of what he says. In the past HRNZ have prioritised the publically expressed concerns of other high profile stakeholder groups, through the implementation of policies to address their concerns. for example HRNZ addressed the concerns of major players within the industry by introducing the likes of bonuses for 2 year old racing. So speaking out is not something new by people within the industry. In fact the way hrnz seem to operate,its the squeaky wheel that gets oiled ,so to speak. the only thing i thought unnecessary in jones letter,was his reference to "its baffling how someone with such questionable personal financial history was entrusted with our industry's money in the first place". Personally i have no idea what jones was referring to there,nor do i think it was in any way relevant and i think he over stepped the line with that bit.Anyway its well known that many of the worlds richest and smartest people have experienced major financial setbacks,learnt from that and gone on to be great decision makers in business. E.g trump,ford,walt disney . so the same thing can happen,albeit on a totally different scale with anyone smart enough. Personally i think jones should apologise for that bit,but the rest of his letter was very good.thats my opinion anyway.

well blow me down,lookslikeatrixster win after opening at $5 and blowing out to $18. I'm going to give up posting on bit of a yarn as that was my bet of the day,but had nothing on as was posting on bit of a yarn and had sky my tv on delay. Bugga. the change from 40 minutes to 25 minute gaps doesn't help either.i bet that catches a few people out and they don't get bets on.

ben from betcha saying moonlite blood the biggest liabilty he'd seen for a sunday meeting. somehow the bookies opened the horse at $23,when it should really have been about its closing price of about $5,based on its form. it just goes to show if you have done your form and keep an eye out for when the markets come out,theres good money to be made sometimes.Maybe i should start doing that. I actually had it rated to win easily,but unfortunately the gap between the races went from 40 minutes to 25 minutes so i didn't back it. I would have only backed it on the tote anyway.I'm not sure what form book the bookies used for that race. all 4 winners have been backed in today. I suppose the whale tipped the first 2, may explain that to some extent,but its been one of those days so far when the obvious winners actually win . Doesn't happen much i suppose. I wonder if the bookies are on profit/loss linked wages.

ok. so they changed from what they put in their final horse utalisation report which said if you finish 5th or further back ,you lose a point. So,now they have reshuffled the overall stake distribution to give the 5th horse 3% of the stake(an extra 1.25% than previously). to do that,they appear to have reduced the % the 3rd placegetter gets,from 9.5 to 9% and the 4th placegetter from 6 to 5.25% of the total stake. The also rans still get 1.75%.

i've always thought the population being a driver of attendance,has long been proven to be a thing of the past and is now a mistaken belief based on factors no longer relevant The best way to assess whether you will get people to attend harness race meetings in populated areas is the level of horses/trainers/owners in that province. Even if you go to addington on a run of the mill friday,how many people are there for a night out. Next to no one anymore. Its nearly always people with a connection to a horse or the owner of a horse who are the ones that attend. So forget the population thing. the only way population becomes a factor is when HRNZ choose to incentivise clubs to promote attendance and they don't do that do they.

also,yes a maiden should get the same penalty wherever they win. the way to cater for horses who win in lower stake non win races is simple.Just programme races which combine non win horses,horses whose only win was in a lower stake race,and horses who won at an easier venue and have proved uncompetitve in the 1 win grade. they haven't done it in the past and may not in the future,but theres always been that very simple way to maintain those type of horses and their connections participation, had they wanted. I don't think in the past the programmers have cared much for those type of people/ horses.

i think you will find they still lose rating points if they run 5th or further back.

Strange wasn't it. The HRNZ website has a story headlined "new legislation secures harness racings future" and has such positive comments from mr steele about how things are going.e.g."enables the industry to keep building on recent growth" Then you have the complete contrast of sentiment being expressed by Mark jones ,in the letter he wrote to all invoved in the industry. I think it highlights what many of us have been saying. Mr steele comes across as someone who is a clever saleman. the catch is,he see's a need for his focus to be, selling to people within harness racing,the perception that he and his adminisitration are doing a good job and thigs are heading in a positive direction. reality is,If things are positive, as he continually says,then he wouldn't need to keep reinforcing his positive sales pitch. Its like hes working on the idea that the more you say something ,the more people will believe it to be true...But that only works if you have an uninformed audience. People in the industry can see the falling particpation levels,breeding numbers,losses generated from so many meetings and they say,whats this bloke from australia on about.. Mark jones appears to be a realist with common sense and good instincts. those are the traits the industry needs most from the administrators leading the industry. i still think the biggest issue is leadership don't have a vision of a sustainable future and people are pulling in different directions. Theres no common bond to make people get on board and pull in the same dircetion. If ever you want an example of failed leadership,just look at what they are saying,or not saying about the auckland issue. And i fully agree with brodie when he says,the media and presenters who continue to push auckland continuing at alexandra park are losing credibilty. Having said all that,when it comes to mr jones criticism of the upcoming changes to the handicapping system. i think people should read for themselves the horse utilisation reports which were prepared by a committee chaired by john mooney. I read it in full.i thought so much of what was in there seemed to make perfect sense to me. Actually i was surprised they didn't make changes to the scratching penalties like they proposed. If ever there was a joke of a system its the scratching penalties. I've heard what some trainers have said about that,no one takes scratching penalties seriously. The only people who it penalises are the ones who play by the rule.

its good to see someone like mark jones with the confidence to say what he is thinking. i've posted on here, how i've wondered why people in canterbury are so complacent and so willing to accept seemingly obvious poor decision making by those leading the industry ,when it will be themselves that will be impacted in the future.I'm of the opinion that those who just sit back and say nothing, sort of deserve what they will get in the future. Obviously mark jones is someone willing to fight for what he believes is best for the industry. as i've said a few times,if what hes saying is false,then those he has criticised will easily counter his comments by referring to the data which proves what he says is wrong. In other words they would have no reason to be threatened by what he says if he's wrong. On the flip side of course, if all the data shows hes accurate,then those he criticises will attack not what he has to say,but will attack him. And of course they will try and silence him.my guess is that is what will happen or may indeed be already happening. so interesting to see how it plays out. interesting how he has said he's unhappy with mr mooney and mr steele. I wonder if he thinks they will play fair and debate him on the merits. Does he not know how they operate? I could only speculate myself,i guess it depends whether you happen to be someone who has said something to upset them in the past and seen how they have reacted. As to my opinion as to what mark jones has said. i think hes summed up the financial state of the industry very well. I don't agree with everything,e.g. he says they should retain the training centre at auckland. i think its far too late for that and theres most likely too many factors at play, to go back on that decision even if they wanted to. The auckland club must have spent a fortune on getting that land rezoned for residential development.And given they are in such terrible shape,i can't imagine the auckland club is in the decision making drivers seat anyway . Wouldn't it be the bank calling the shots. i do agree with him in what he says about the auckland club and hrnz current handling of their plight and the impact such poor decision making will have on the industry elsewhere.. Its staggering that HRNZ haven't already seen the writing on the wall and made a call about racing at alexandra park. actually only last month m geurin wrote an article saying the auckland club was adamant racing will always remain at alexandra park. You have to laugh when you read some of the comments people in charge,make about auckland. I used to think that jamie mckinnon was a smart cookie,but now i think someone has dunked that cookie in some hot tea for too long. Mark jones expressed optimism, if alexandra park was sold,that auckland could re-emerge as a vibrant centre with strong prize money. I don't get how he thinks that could happen.Sure i agree they could still have a fututre,but put to one side the financial woes,theres reasons for the decline in so many other apsects and theres no evidence to think your ever going to be able to reverse those trends. He mentions training centres. Now i guess hes talking about auckland,but when it comes to canterbury,he must be aware that part of the reason its decline will speed up in the fututre, is because people can't afford their own training establishments anymore and without a training centre there,all you will get in 10 years times is the big stables and next to no one else training.Everything i've predicted 10 years ago is happening in canterbury and i bet my bottom $ i'm right about where the industry is heading without a training centre in canterbury.Thats not to say having one is still realistic. The contraction of the industry thats been going on in canterbury may mean its its become too late for that anyway. as to mr jone's comments about mr mooney. Now i'm the last one who would want to be an apologist for him,given the past,but i think it should be acknowledged that the Horse utlisation report that he chaired ,and a dozen or so industry figures, prepared ,had a lot of good common sense things in it.Again,unfortunately,i think hrnz moved too slow on implementing that and the possible positive impacts from those changes will not be as sugnificant due to the delay in implementation. but ,to summarise,i really do think mark jones has good instincts on the state of the industry and where changes need to be made. Mark jones said above "over emphasis on high end age group racing risks alienating the core participants who race week in and week out".That shows mr jones really does have his finger on the pulse of the industries well being.

Theres not many aggresive drivers anymore in auckland. tonight,the majority of the races are rather boring if you were just watching and not betting. you can't say otherwise as they mostly run such slow middle sectionals and they all have a snooze if they are at the back. i think its a combination of just being a time when some young drivers are starting out and consequently don't show much aggression and some of the older drivers seem to lack as much aggression as they used to. Actually,while i don't like betting on anything j dickie drives,because they generally are paying unders,at least he will move up on slow paces and give his horses a chance.i see the former stonewall driver,B butcher,who used to be one of the better drivers up there,still hasn't driven a winner since his come back from injury 4 months ago. that must be frustrating for him,or for punters who follow him. i only put a small amount in my account tonight,and when i did have a bet at auckland,they couldn't even confirm the race before the next at addingtion so no money to bet with at addington. The auckland race started on time,so entain really aren't encouraging people to bet if they can't get races confirmed 10 minutes after they start.Mind you saved me money so i should be thanking them i suppose.

oh and i do agree withyou tabman that entain have done many good things for the industry. Mr shannon appeared very switched on when it came to what makes harness racing and punters tick.Him going from entain is very unfortunate.Having said that i didn't agree with everything he pushed. personally i always wonder ,did the nz governement,when negotiating with tabcorp,realise the significance of the things that drive turnover. i.e. pre race coverage and betting pools sizes. Like tabcorp run the sky channel and they have their own pools on nz racing.Entain obviously was the better short term deal,but did those that negotiated the deal ever consider ,if they could have coerced tabcorp to agree to the deal and include guaranteed pre race lead in time for nz racing on their sky 1 channel and got undertakings from them to work to enable commingling with their pools on nz racing. Doesn't it make sense that could have been a better deal long term for the nz racing industry.

Sadly the issues you have pointed out will only get worse. i've commented on them for many years now. Actually i've made suggestions how hrnz could have mitigated the impact,more recently suggesting HRNZ should have used their forbury money, to purchase strategically situated land and developed it for the purposes of supplying specific harness industry activity land use and harness industry related professional services, at rates which could have had the two fold effect of reducing costs for owners/breeders/trainers while at the same time being run in a way that was profit generating for the industry,that profit being reinvested in the industry . In effect a business model similar to that used by the exclusive brethren. but ,the way HRNZ operate and think, thats never going to happen. the north island being more expensive. Well its been like that for decades.I remeber noticing that 30 years ago when i travelled to the north island.And the reasons for that have only got more significant. Land values,land use,urban sprawl,population growth all factors which have negatively impacted on people who own horses. Look at those obvious factors i just mention,they directly are related to why some provinces have only large scale harness horse trainers and very few small time trainers. Auckland is the best example,yet for reasons which i find totally illogical,you get so many people telling us to ignore the population based causes and base ones thinking on population growth being a good thing. as i've said before,the same thing is playing out in canterbury,urban sprawl,the negative flow on impacts to harness racing will and are happening there. farm use,i.e .dairy farming is another factor which had a major impact on the harness industry. Just look at the land use in southland and how the dairying transformation there resulted in a different type of farmer with different interests. The sheep farmers with the harness horses in their paddocks cashed up and were replaced by dairying,with no horses. anyways,so much of what has significantly impacted the harness industry,e.g.land use,has been outside the industries control,but sadly they have never taken steps to mitigate the damage anyway. Not that long ago HRNZ put out a press release about approaching racing clubs to see if their land could be better utilised for harness racing. Having seen for years how tracks work and be run,i know thats a loser of an idea.HRNZ mean well with those thoughts,but in my opinion shouldn't waste their time working with that. They should either address the issue themselves without partnering racecourses ,or not at all. One thing HRNZ did do which i thought was good was they tried to set up a registry of agistment properties so people could use that as a starting point when looking to find somewhere for their horses. That was good thinking. But,i don't know whether they got much of a respeonse to that as i'm not on facebook,but my guess is they would have been disappointed with the response from people advising they could take horses in for grazing.From my own personal experiences of looking for somewhere to graze your horses at affordable rates,you can take years and approach hundreds,sometimes thousands of property owners with nothing in their paddocks and still find no one interested. .

psyche that should have read.

the one thing everyone agrees on is we want to see a sustainable industry.. We need leadership who brings us together and has everyone pull in the same direction and makes everyone ,whatever the level,or the scale,feel valued. we also need honesty and transparency. extolling confidence that everything is all fine and dandy, when people can see with their own eyes that the indicators show everything is not fine and dandy,well all that does is undermine peoples faith in the person giving the misleading statements. The industry also needs to use resources in areas that get results.They should not use resources to try and attain results in areas that for decades, previous administrators have tried and failed to achieve.Theres a reason for the previous failures. why can't people see that. Personally i think HRNZ has got so much completely wrong. they should be coming up with strategies based on intergenerational transfer of families interest in harness racing,whether it be as a racegoer,an owner or a breeder or whatever. emphasis should be placed on catering for the families of people who already participate.And not only to encourage families, but also their friends and associates, to come along to race meetings. Hrnz should be using resources to work together with clubs to provide facilities, entertainment ,refreshments and food at cost, all so as to make current owners and breeders feel their families and friendsare going to an event or gathering, were common interests can be shared and fun to be had.That should be the focus. HRNZ should be cordinating and directing resources to clubs who do this . It shouldn't just be based on the harness product,it should be based on the harness product being the catalyst for bringing them together. Do that,and your selling the industry in a positive way. That is the best way to plant the seed. It may not bear fruit tomorrow,but when those people hit an age where they have more of the discretion $ to spend,theres a good chance they might consider spending it on a family,friend based product,i.e. harness racing. HRNZ undervalue the contribuitions and importance of people 40 and over,and hrnz overvalue the importance of people under 40. stakes paid are only part of the reason peopleown horses,recognise that and place more emphasis on the other reasons. i say again,as i believe its being missed by administrators,intergenerational transfer of peoples interests in the sport where significant focus should be. I have also commented in the past that hrnz should be directing resources to get harness racing into the pshyce of people.Subconciously make people aware that its there,contributing to their communities.theres many ways they could do that without spending much money. then theres the horses.

i agree with you on this one,with a couple of caveats. I believe HRNZ is doing the right thing running these tuesday meetings and should be congragulated for having made those changes. especially in canterbury,where the horse numbers justify these meetings . As you say,owners trainers,drivers all those other people employed by the industry earning income to support their families maintain their presence in the industry.Breeders getting enjoyment and recognition seeing their horses race,whatever the level. everything inter related flowing in a way that is positive. My caveat is when they hold these meetings with small numbers,like todays at cambridge,they need to stipulate that they will run them,but stakemoney will be reduced based on the number of horses running in each race. e.g. they could stipulate they have a base stake of $4000 which goes up $1000 every extra 2 horses above 5,capped at $8000. In other words a 6-7 horse field runs for $5000,and 8-9 horse field $6000,etc. theres no way they should be running 5 horse fields for $8000. Its fiscally irresponsible. i don't know why they don't already do that. Of course,when doing that,they must reduce the handicapping penalties accordingly. e.g. a non win low stake race winner could remain eligible for other non win races before getting any further penalties or could get a small penalty,and then if it hasn't earned x amount of $ within a time frame, can drop back to its previous grade. Too many non win horses who win a low stake raceday struggle in the next grade and just disappear when they could be kept in training,boost starter numbers ,knowing they will get the chance to compete back in a grade that they really are more comfortable at. I could name dozens of horses who win a low grade non win stake and if you put them back in a non win race, you would still be thinking they will take a wee bit of time to win again. see heres the thing gammalite. Most believe HRNZ are eroding their reserves by paying higher stakes than is fiscally responsible, Turnovers show too many races are being run at a loss. The best analogy to descibe it is., Hrnz has come to a crossroads. to the right is a road which starts off on an easy decline,paved with stakes at its current level (and lots of bonuses if you drive an expensive car),but your fully aware that down that road,not that many years away, the road will come to a hill which you can see will get steeper and steeper, the more you progress along it and that road is paved with ever decreasing stake levels... To the left,is a road which starts off with a very slight rise,its not easy,but you can handle it.its paved with slightly reduced stake levels,but still at a level where you can prosper and make a living,plan for the future, or at least have a bit of fun and get some return,and that road continues exactly the same for years to come,just that slight rise,but you get used to it and live within your means. well HRNZ have turned right and they are enjoying their ride,looking out the windows are the good stakes,patting each other on the back ,their driver telling everyone have confident he is they took the right turn.. But the thingi s when they hit that steep hill,they're going to find they are going to have to start losing passengers just to make ever slowing progress. strange thing was,when they turned right,the map they were looking at cleary showed the big hill they were heading towards. in the not too distant future,everyone going to be saying,they should have turned left.

i think what that press release is saying is entains original agreement with the government meant they expected to be receiving money from turnover generated on nz greyhounds. so ,when the governments ban on nz greyhound racing comes into effect,it means part of entains income will have been impacted,so they have said,hey we will sort that out with adjustments to your share of the revenues generated from the australian greyhounds, through the nz tab.(maybe entain may have sued them about that bit?) but other parts of that press seem misleading a little,becuase the governmant already had an agreement with entain to do the geo blocking in return for an extra payment from entain of $100m to be split up amongst sports and racing and the government. That was already there before the greyhounds decision to close down. Is edward reneell and the greyhound people doing themselves any favours by attacking the government with statements that can be construed as a bit misleading.Interesting tactic.